Section 250 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.359

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 359 (Procedure in appeal) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 359 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 250 is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 26,976 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 250

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI
73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court
1,778
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Judgments on Section 250

Smt. Rupali Sinha, Paschim Burdhaman vs. ITO, Ward - 2(4), Durgapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1441/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1441/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Rupali Sinha……………….……………………………………..……..…………………………….. Appellant Dvc More Post Pandeshwar Dist. Paschim Burdhaman (W.B.)-713101 [Pan : Bhnps 8212 F] I.T.O. Ward-2(4), Durgapur……..…………….…………………………………………….…….. Respondent Pin – 713201 Appearances By: Shri Sumit Ghosh, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 19Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 4Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Durgapur, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 12/04/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case:- The Assessee Is An Individual. She Is The Proprietor Or Two Concerns. She Was Doing Business In Cement Under The Name & Style Of ‘M/S. Sinha Traders’ & Business In Hardware Under The Name & Style Of ‘M/S. Pandaveswar Hardware. 3. The Issue That Arises For Consideration Before Me Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing The Purchases Of Rs.7,75,575/-, From Out Of The Total Purchases Of Rs.28,68,747 Made By M/S. Sinha Traders & Further Disallowance Of Rs.9,49,404/- Out Of The Total Purchase Of Rs.36,56,389/-, Made By M/S. Pandaveswar Hardware. The Assessee Submits That The Corresponding Sales Have Been Reflected By It In Its Accounts & That All Necessary Evidences Were Filed & Hence The Disallowance Of The Entire Sales Is Bad In Law. He Also Relies On The Finding Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Durgapur, In The First Round Of Appellate Proceedings In 2

Section 250

V.N. Sunanda Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1691/HYD/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year: 2003-04 Shri V.N. Sunanda Reddy, Vs. Dy. Cit, Hyderabad. Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Pan- Abmpv9517E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Venkateswarlu Smt. N. Swapna Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 26-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2018 Order Per Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-9, Hyderabad Dated 26.05.2017 For The A.Y 2003-04 Passed U/S 250 Of The It Act, 1961 (The Act). 2. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Am Of The Considered Opinion That This Appeal Should Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication In Accordance With Law, After Giving The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard, On The Ground Of Natural Justice. 3. The Assessee Is Directed To Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) Within One Month Of Receipt Of This Order To Take Notice I Hearing & Thereafter Cooperate With Ld. Cit(A), As Per The Convenience Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Disposing Of This Appeal. Shri V.N Sunand Reddy, Hyderabad. 4. In The Result This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes. Pronounced In The Open Court On 26Th April, 2018. (J. Sudhakar Reddy)

For Appellant: Shri G. VenkateswarluFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 250

M/S. Redstrip Merchants (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2526/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2526/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Redstrip Merchants (P) Ltd………..……………………………………..……....………Appellant C/O, Kapoor Mehrotra & Associates, 23, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan : Aabcr 3447 E] Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3), Kolkata……………….…………..…………….……..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit (A)’), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt.12/06/2013, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Find That The Assessing Officer As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) Have Passed Ex-Parte Orders. The Assessee Appeared Before Me Through His Counsel & Convinced Me That He Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Appearing Before The Revenue Authorities.

Section 250

Essdee Cements Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2435/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2435/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Esdee Cements Pvt. Ltd………………….…………….…..……………………………………….……..Appellant C/O. P.K. Kimmatsingka Aa-4 Salt Lake Kolkata – 700 064 [Pan : Aaace 7454 R] Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kolkata….…….………..…..……………………………..Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Pramod Kr. Himmatsinghka, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 27Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13Th , 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit (A)’), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 29/09/2017, For The Assessment Year 2010-11, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “(A) That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.11,38,035/- Being Short Cash Balance Found During The Survey At Factory Premises (Remote Location) In Compare To Books Of Accounts, Therefore Addition So Made On The Alleged Ground Of Unexplained Expenditure Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Deleted. (B) That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.7,81,294/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Difference In Stock Of Raw Materials & Unfinished Goods Found At The Time Of Survey At Factory Premises Though In Fact Stocks Were Taken By Survey Team Evidently On Eye Estimate Basis On Round Figure Without Proper Measurement. Stock Of Raw Materials Were Kept In Open At Factory Premises Stacked In Heap/Mound, Therefore Addition Was Without Any Basis, Unjustified, Vague, Unlawful & Liable To Be Annulled.

Section 250